Schoeps MK41 Alternatives?

Okay, I am almost convinced to maybe break down and go with the MK41. So now I find there is an MK41, an MK41s, and an MK41v. For the MK41v, it says "radial pickup", so I'm sure I wouldn't want that, but the MK41s it supposed to have an "LF roll off". I assume that means low frequency roll off. Could that take the place of the Cut 1 filter? I was thinking I would just control the low frequency issues using the high pass on my SD 442 but would this LF roll off be better? Or does it change the capsule where I lose some other desirable characteristics for interior dialog?
Since everyone seems to have the same price on this, does anyone have a recommendation for which Schoeps dealer gives the best service for small production outfits? Any ideas (other than Ebay) for find a used Schoeps?
 
Just found this write up on the MK41-S which I think answers my question. Do you'all agree with the conclusion below that it is probably better to go with the standard MK41 and use a Cut 1 for more flexibility in case I want the full bass frequencies?
And is it advisable to just use the high pass on my SD 442 or is it much better to go with a Cut 1?

Here is the write up on the MK41-S:
This microphone type is a pressure-gradient transducer with a distinct bass rolloff, designed exclusively for the intelligible pickup of speech at close range in acoustically unfavorable conditions where proximity effect is inherent in the situation. Thus it is not normally suitable for music, and speech pickup at greater distance would sound thin and bright. If the user is faced with such problems only occasionally, this type of microphone may not be the most practical choice since it is intended to be used for very close miking, especially of speech. Instead, the standard version of the cardioid (MK 41 or CCM 41) can be used in combination with a variable filter (CUT or LChttp://schoeps.de/E-2004/acc-gen-electric.html#lc60 for MK 41, LC for CCM 41) which attenuates the low frequencies electrically. The CUT allows the amount of low-frequency attenuation to be tailored to the specific voice, its working distance and the locale. Of course the low frequencies could also be reduced at the preamp or console, but the CUT reduces the danger of overloading their inputs due to pop or wind noise. The MK 41 or CCM 41 – without the low-cut – can then be used for recording music or more distant dialogue on a different occasion.
 
www.trewaudio.com
has a couple cmc6/mk41's
and a cmc5 mk41

If you talk to them im sure they will be able to tell you the exact condition and sound quality
better than most.

If you're buying the mic for dialog you want the standard MK41
not the other versions, which are a little more for specific uses where the mk41
will work overall better.

If you buy the CMC5 that is NOT a bluedot (hotter output)
there is an extremely easy mod you can do to get the hotter output.
I did it to my CMC5 and it took a few mins and it has a much better output now.

Its literally changing one jumper.

If you dont feel comfortable im sure trew can do the mod.
Just ask if the mics has the hotter output.
 
For future reference here is the mod to turn a standard output schoeps CMC into a bluedot/hotter output

(i was sent this picture from a dealer years ago to show me how to do it.)
abcmc5.jpg
 
A wealth of great information in their thread. Thanks Rippie and John especially! I have tested the CMC641 but the two of you brought me a much more detailed understanding of the mic and it's variants.

Dan
 
You want the MK41, not the MK41s nor the MK41v.

While the polar response of the MK41S is similar to the original MK41, the MK41s abruptly rolls off at around 380Hz, about =6dB/octave.

The MK41V has a slight high-lift at 14kHz and dip at 6kHz, but the most dramatic difference is its off-axis coloration being less prone to mid-high frequencies and below. Meaning it becomes more like an omni the closer it gets to the bottom.
 
Wow, thanks for all the great info everyone!

I know there are probably differences of opinion on this, but do you think the Cut 1 is:
1 - needed
2 - not needed but good
3 - or undesireable
for my particular application? Or should I just use the high pass on my SD 442?
 
Some people prefer having the Cut-1 on and some don't. Gernerally you want the Cut-1 to cutoff any excessive LF noise before it hits your mic preamp, in this case the CMC preamp body. Instead of cutting it at the mixer stage, you eliminate it at or around the source before it gets amplified.

It adds weight. The more you extend your mic out from the boompole, the heavier it's going to feel because you need a much stronger counterweight. I have never needed the Cut-1, nor any of the ops I've worked with. In situations where you'll need to swing and cover multiple talents across the location/stage, adding a 2nd boom to your setup is more desireable.
 
misscc803 said:
How is the handling noise on the Audix SCX1 HC is it better compared to the Oktava?
Thanks
Nicole
Click to expand...

While I've used the Audix in choir, drum and gtr recordings, I sometimes pull it out to see how this pup performs in heavy dialog parts. It's impressive and outshines my AT4053a, more flat and rounded. A friend of mine who I've worked with many times have the Oktava and it's more sensitive than the Audix in handling noise.

The Audix is better in handling noise and rumbles.
 
Alan H. Chang said:
While I've used the Audix in choir, drum and gtr recordings, I sometimes pull it out to see how this pup performs in heavy dialog parts. It's impressive and outshines my AT4053a, more flat and rounded. A friend of mine who I've worked with many times have the Oktava and it's more sensitive than the Audix in handling noise.

The Audix is better in handling noise and rumbles.
Click to expand...

anything is better than the Oktava in handling noise, how does it compare with other hypercardioids, or shotguns
 
Last edited:
Oktava:
http://vimeo.com/7507519
http://vimeo.com/8471115

Schoeps:
http://vimeo.com/6715444

Just for a small comparison between these hyper mics.

The AT4053a has more sizzle, low handling noise, higher siblance, tighter mids, less flat than the Oktava. Built like a tank as well. Been through some wet weather having the mic almost fully drenched in rain. Still works.

The SCX1 has less sizzle, lower handling noise, much less siblance, flatter than the Oktava. Sounds close to an MK41 except for the off-axis character. Solid performing mic.

Used the MBHO 603's twice in my life with a friend of mine. Low handling noise, some slight 3-4kHz rise, off-axis could be described as having less "air" than the Oktava. Sounds even and good, but different from the rest. Something similar to the Oktava in the lower register.

AKG CK93 has low handling noise, sounds flat up to about 8-9kHz with a little rise and smooth highs. Great versatility for being modular and having many options of accessories.

Neumann KM185 is tight in pattern. Good handling noise. The way it sounds, more suited for instruments than voice. KM184 is more open because of it's wider pattern.

MKH50 has very low handling noise, higher immunity to RF noise, built like a tank, smooth uniform pickup pattern. MKH60 from the same family, much tighter pattern, most often used outdoors, low handling noise. Non-switchable capsules.

8050 and the 8040 are the newer mics in town, costs about 1/2 less than the MK41, incredibly close to it, more immune to RF, small, rich lower mids, smooth off-axis rejection, small again.

Tons of other mics, but these are the most common mics you'll hear/see on set. Each one has its own advantages and disadvantages against each other. Tools to help you record what you need for the situation. All are modular except for the MKH50/60 series. AKG, MBHO, and the Schoeps have one of the most accessories for its modular system. The Schoeps rule in the configuration category.

You can go to Dan's site for a full evaluation of almost a complete set of shotgun microphones to listen and entertain.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/right_mic_brockett.html
 
Last edited:
Wow, Fantastic comparison and reviews Alan.:thumbup:
Thanks for your effort---really helps put hyper options in perspective.
 
Alan of the mic's you mentioned and their different off-axis characteristics, which do you think would be best to split-the-difference between actors?

(I know the Schoep's off-axis response make it king for this, but just curious how others compare)
 
The most important is good boom operating. Nothing beats the proper technique of recording things right in the first place. Then the tools become 2nd nature.

The Senn 8000 series has a very good price/performance value especially the 8050. Their off-axis comes to the closest with the MK41. The 8040 is wider because of it's cardioid pattern, I prefer this over the Schoeps MK4. If you've already used a MK41, mind as well stick with the MK4. One thing I don't like about the MK4 is its higher sensitivity to siblance as compared to the 8040. Next down is the Audix SCX-1.
 
If, in the future, I wanted to use an Audic SCX-1 as a 2nd boom and the MK41 as the primary, do you think would they intercut fairly well?
 
It'll be fine when you use that combo. The audience isn't going to notice these kinds of things except for you and the post team. They can tweak to match the mics together. The only exception is to record all your dialogue clearly, hoping that nothing else intrudes your recording. Make sure to take good notes about which mic you used on which take and channel, how far they were from the talents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top